Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20064798›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake.

Annette Moxey, Jane Robertson, David Newby, Isla Hains, Margaret Williamson, Sallie-Anne Pearson

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

139 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Increasing uptake of NHS Health Checks: a randomised controlled trial using GP computer prompts.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Annette MoxeyDiscipline of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia.
Jane Robertson
David Newby
Isla Hains
Margaret Williamson
Sallie-Anne Pearson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is wide variability in the use and adoption of recommendations generated by computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) despite the benefits they may bring to clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, CDSS uptake by physicians to guide prescribing decisions. We identified 58 studies by searching electronic databases (1990-2007). Factors impacting on CDSS use included: the availability of hardware, technical support and training; integration of the system into workflows; and the relevance and timeliness of the clinical messages. Further, systems that were endorsed by colleagues, minimized perceived threats to professional autonomy, and did not compromise doctor-patient interactions were accepted by users. Despite advances in technology and CDSS sophistication, most factors were consistently reported over time and across ambulatory and institutional settings. Such factors must be addressed when deploying CDSSs so that improvements in uptake, practice and patient outcomes may be achieved.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDrug Therapy, Computer-AssistedHumans

Identifiers

PMID20064798
PMCPMC2995634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.